Design for Recyclability

Missing link
One of the major problems with implementation of WEEE is that manufacturers are not required to make products easy to recycle. Problems include difficulty in disassembly, as well as the myriad of disparate materials used to make them.

The European Parliament briefly considered an "eco design" requirement in the new, tougher regulations, but it backed off in the face of complaints that the requirements would be too costly.

A team of students last year demonstrated the feasibility of design for disassembly of a portable laptop computer. Students from Stanford and Finland's Aalto University were given the task of designing a recyclable consumer electronics product that makes electronics recycling a simpler, more effective, and engaging process for consumers.

The students used Autodesk Inventor and Autodesk Inventor Publisher software to create 3D digital prototypes of the hardware components inside the laptop. The laptop's modular design allowed easy separation of different materials including metals, plastics, and circuitry.

Called "Bloom," the prototype laptop can be disassembled in two minutes without tools, and in just 10 steps. By comparison, a commercially available laptop takes about 45 minutes to disassemble, requires three separate tools, and involves as many as 120 steps.

Beyond recyclability, Bloom delivers other benefits. The team used the easy-to-disassemble modularity of Bloom to develop a keyboard and track pad, which detach and allow for improved ergonomics.

"We used Autodesk Inventor software often during the ideation phase to experiment with the design," Aaron Engel-Hall, a Stanford student and team member, said in an interview. "We created 3D shapes to represent the hardware we had to design around, and the parametric design of Inventor software let me put in different parameters so that all the model dimensions would update immediately. I was also able to experiment with various thicknesses for the case enclosure, making it as thin as possible while maintaining structural integrity."

The ease of disassembly also makes it easier to repair and upgrade components over the lifetime of the product.

"Consumer electronics waste is a significant and growing problem," says Robert "Buzz" Kross, senior vice president of the Manufacturing Industry Group at Autodesk. "It's encouraging and exciting to see college students embrace Digital Prototyping to tackle the sustainability challenges of our times."

The project was part of Stanford University's ME310 course. Consumer electronics giants such as Apple were corporate partners in the course. And speaking of Apple, Design News' investigation of recent design trends at the company shows -- if anything -- a trend away from recycling consideration.

Two materials being researched for portable electronics housings by Apple are carbon composite and bulk metallic glass -- materials that would be very difficult to recycle. The new materials would replace aluminum, a highly recyclable metal, in some cases. Apple had no comment when contacted by Design News.

The Dual-Snap Joiner can be removed from a panel by placing a tool over retractable wings. Source: DIRAK

LCD disassembly
Similarly, there has been plenty of interest in the concept of LCD disassembly, but little action.

The average TV screen size is now 32 inches, and LCDs are considered the fastest growing type of waste in North America and the European Union. A typical design has 20 different fastener types; more than 20 complex chemical compounds; several types of plastic film; and structural material, glass, and various adhesives.

The UK funded a project called Reflated, partially through the Technology Strategy Board (TSB), to investigate the recycling of LCDs and their constituent components right down to clean segregation of liquid crystal.

One of the investigators was Dr. Joseph Chiodo, who has invented a group of active disassembly technology applications for LCD automated disassembly and clean segregation access. Chiodo's company, Active Disassembly Research, is currently working on a new design for disassembly manual for LCDs.

Other recommendations from the Reflated project include use of fewer screws, screw standardization, development of removable adhesives, and use of designs that allow easier removal of lamps. And, of course, markets need to be developed for the recovered products. That’s been the missing link for the recycling concept for many years.

Manufacturers may talk recycling but I see a resistance to that as well. They may promote recyclability but I think what they really want is for you to throw that product away and buy another one from them.

Cell phones, for instance, could be very recyclable. Being mechanically inclined, I decided to fix my HTC Tilt (broken lens) instead of buying a new one. First off, it's incredibly complicated; Second, there's one little screw with a wee bit of tape that says "Do not remove" over the top of it. If you destroy the tape (you have to in order to remove the screw), you void the warranty.

I did the same with an IPhone 3G. it's got the same screw. With the IPhone, all I needed to do was replace the rechargeable battery. Apple purposely designed the phone so the battery couldn't be replaced without a complete teardown of the entire product.

I don't believe companies (as a whole) want their products to have long legs.

I find that I tend to look for products that are not easy to disassemble. If I have a car with quick disconnects, what stops a thief from helping himself? Plus I have made it more tempting and convenient - he doesn't need to carry any tools with him.

Beth, that's a good point. The sort of people who are likely to go to the trouble of fixing something that breaks, rather than just throwing it out and buying a new one, are the same sort of people who are likely to resist paying an extra penny for anything. (I know, because I happen to be one of those people!) Unfortunately, this does not create much of an incentive for companies to invest in design for disassembly. So, unfortunately, other than waste regulations which put some of the burden for disposal on the manufacturer (which, as has been mentioned, are difficult to enforce), and/or a massive cultural shift, there doesn't seem to be any good way of getting companies to do this.

I'm not so sure I buy into the fact that consumers will pay more for items that can be disassembled. Or perhaps there isn't a connection that paying a premium for designs that have been optimized for disassembly goes hand-in-hand with getting a product that has longer legs. I think consumers are getting all too accustomed to a throw-away culture, where by when something breaks, you toss it and get a new one. I know, I've been guilty of that sentiment on more than one occasion. I'm not proud of it, but just saying ...

Great point, Tim. In my wife's native El Salvador, absolutely everything is disassembled and serviced long after it would be considered junk here. One result is that there are quite a few people with a high degree of mechanical aptitude and a working knowledge of electromechanical systems. This might be one reason why many U.S. airlines send their aircraft to El Salvador for service. (Of course, another reason is that even a degreed engineer rarely makes more than $1000 per month).

There is a large consumer market for items that can be disassembled and serviced. Consumers will pay more for items that can be disassembled and serviced for longer life. They do not naturally consider this as recycling or helping the environment. They just see it as putting a little more money into a component to get a lot more life out of it. Company driven directives to use screws instead of welds and having available service departments show a dedication to long product life as well as environmental consideration.

I think we overlook the problem in the middle of the recycling chain. For example, my governng bodies provide me with refuse containers. The one for garbage is a 96-gallon monster with 8" wheels to allow me to get it to the street withoug having a hernia. In fact, I have two containers because one is never enough. I fill them both weekly, and by the end of the year, I should have the place cleaned up to suit me.

On the other hand, the bin for recycling is a little bitty thing, possibly no more than 6 gallons. I have to crush the aluminum cans, even though the recycling depot has a mahine to do that. They won't take steel cans or glass, even though both are recyclable. I can put out any amount of newspaper, up to the bin's capacity, but only on days it might not rain. Magazines are generally unacceptable; some nonsense about slick paper. Heaven forbid I should want to toss the box that contained an appliance. They will take cardboard, but only in pieces that fit in the bin. And why not toss it all in the truck and sort it at the depot.

I cannot help believing that most people would gladly recycle if it were even remotely simple. And why isn't the recycling bin as large as the trash bin. What can the average person do with his electronics? I see an old CRT TV on the curb at least once a week. It seems like we could come up with a simple and cost-effective system for recycling so everyone would participate with ease.

Doug, I hearing the same things you mention -- the EU WEEE directive has not been enforced evenly. Here's in the U.S., we have a patchwork of different laws in different states, many states with nothing. A uniform national U.S. law could help the design engineer with a coherent compliance target. Congress, however, doesn't seem to be in the mood to pass federal environmental regulations.

The best hope now seems to be companies that bring green practices to their materials choices voluntarily. The concept seems to resonate with consumers.

Engineer's hearts are in the right place, and that clearly showed through in our survey results. But there isn't much that they can realistically accomplish without strong corporate support. Design for recyclability is a major initiative that requires support from the very highest level officers in the company. That isn't happening.

Nice piece, Doug. It's disheartening to hear, though, that design for disassembly doesn't have the legs or backing that perhaps it should. I think the example you cited about the university students using digital prototyping and 3D CAD software from Autodesk to both optimize the ergonomics and appeal of their laptop design while also getting good results in terms of design for disassembly is a great example and one I hope more engineering teams will follow.

A few weeks ago, Ford Motor Co. quietly announced that it was rolling out a new wrinkle to the powerful safety feature called stability control, adding even more lifesaving potential to a technology that has already been very successful.

It won't be too much longer and hardware design, as we used to know it, will be remembered alongside the slide rule and the Karnaugh map. You will need to move beyond those familiar bits and bytes into the new world of software centric design.

People who want to take advantage of solar energy in their homes no longer need to install a bolt-on solar-panel system atop their houses -- they can integrate solar-energy-harvesting shingles directing into an existing or new roof instead.

Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.